From: MaxPlumm@aol.com
Date: Fri Mar 14 2003 - 06:48:22 MST
Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
>...
>Yet, I clearly remember hearing one of the attorneys working for the
>committee that investigated him say they did not have sufficient evidence to
>indict him.
>...
>Ron h.
>
To which Charles Hixson responded:
"The first relevant link I found was:
http://www.chron.com/content/interactive/special/watergate/tapes.html
There were *many* pages of others."
I would merely suggest that this page, much like most of the other "serious"
news services, does its typical media best to sum up a complex issue in glib
unhelpful fashion. Nowhere does it illustrate that Dean's testimony was full
of contradictions that should have called into question his reliability as a
witness. Nowhere does it illustrate that the "impartial" House and Senate
bodies that took up the Watergate matter refused to include in their
investigation previous elections and administrations, lest they give whatever
Nixon's actions were the much needed historical perspective. Nowhere does it
illustrate that Nixon fired Archibald Cox during the Yom Kippur War, fearing
that Brezhnev might move Soviet troops into Israel and Egypt unilaterally (as
he had said he would) if the Soviet General Secretary thought Nixon had lost
control of his own government. It is high time that President Nixon's
actions, both good and ill, were judged on their own merits and not on three
decades old hysteria that does not hold up under scrutiny.
Regards,
Max Plumm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 14 2003 - 06:55:49 MST